Topper wrote:........waiting for the inevitable reefer complaint of too much line juggling/players unable to develop chemistry......

and the follow up to that, The Split up the Sedins suggestions.

a) they need line juggling, once you get pass Sedins and Kelser there is no consistent offence so they need to shake it upb) I have rarely said anything about splitting them upc) I really don't care how the team does right now, this team is in the middle of the league and may or may not win the cup should they make the playoffs. They could if the team clicks at the right time or they could go out in 4 again.

BurningBeard wrote:He may be an inexcusable waste of $4 million, but at least Samuelsson isn't out playing him.

Which is why letting Samuelsson walk at the end of his contract, instead of trading him for the big useless Jesus boy, bear baiter and his 4.25 million dollar contract which doesn't end til after next season. Tallon has got the last laugh over this one, the only hope for Gillis redeeming himself is that Cole Cassels actually turns into a stud as he was the 3rd pick Florida gave us in that deal.

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

BurningBeard wrote:He may be an inexcusable waste of $4 million, but at least Samuelsson isn't out playing him.

Which is why letting Samuelsson walk at the end of his contract, instead of trading him for the big useless Jesus boy, bear baiter and his 4.25 million dollar contract which doesn't end til after next season. Tallon has got the last laugh over this one, the only hope for Gillis redeeming himself is that Cole Cassels actually turns into a stud as he was the 3rd pick Florida gave us in that deal.

You didn't think trading Samuelsson (and getting rid of Sturm) for Booth wasn't an upgrade? And a really good shot at getting a 30 goal scorer that had chemistry with Kesler? I'm not talking about right now, I'm talking about Oct 2011, like 10 games into the season.

RoyalDude wrote:the only hope for Gillis redeeming himself is that Cole Cassels actually turns into a stud as he was the 3rd pick Florida gave us in that deal.

Cole Cassels if off to a great start. He's like 22nd among the OHL scoring leaders. BoHo is like 1 point behind him. Hopefully, Cassels will turn out to be a dark horse pick and turn out to be a good one; he has the genes, hopefully he'll pan out.

BurningBeard wrote:You didn't think trading Samuelsson (and getting rid of Sturm) for Booth wasn't an upgrade? And a really good shot at getting a 30 goal scorer that had chemistry with Kesler? I'm not talking about right now, I'm talking about Oct 2011, like 10 games into the season.

I'm with RD on this one. I would of stayed away from Boothy. I didn't like his contract (salary + term) for a player who was relatively unknown. If MG stayed away from Booth + Baltard altogether, he would of had some younger assets (1st pick + grabner) and available dollars to use on players who could actuallly help this team.

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:I'm with RD on this one. I would of stayed away from Boothy. I didn't like his contract (salary + term) for a player who was relatively unknown. If MG stayed away from Booth + Baltard altogether, he would of had some younger assets (1st pick + grabner) and available dollars to use on players who could actuallly help this team.

This is what psychologists refer to as creeping determinism, or looking at events which have already occurred as being more predictive than they actually were.

At this point, even I have a hard time arguing that Booth should stick around.

Booth was an attempt at getting a 25-30 goal scorer in the lineup for next to nothing. We also got a third round pick in that trade which has turned into a useful prospect. At this point Booth is on the fast track to being waived. You win some (Higgins) you lose some (Booth). Wotever.

It's too bad Shinkaruk/Horvat/Gaunce/Cassels aren't a year or two older and that Jensen isn't an option.

Todd Bersnoozi wrote:I'm with RD on this one. I would of stayed away from Boothy.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Gillis took a risk on a Booth and lost (or is losing). Period.

Gillis saw a 20 something year old that had good size, and had proven success at the NHL level. Gillis saw a guy that had a few injuries, but had a realistic shot of re-discovering his 30 goal self. Gillis took the risk and lost.

In theory however, I don't think Gillis' line of thought can be at fault at all.

Ditto for Ballard. Gillis' logic and line of thought was not at fault. The players he picked up, for various reasons, just did not play well while they were here.

The Brown Knight wrote:In theory however, I don't think Gillis' line of thought can be at fault at all.

Ditto for Ballard. Gillis' logic and line of thought was not at fault. The players he picked up, for various reasons, just did not play well while they were here.

Gillis got Ballard out of an abundance of caution, fearing that he would not be able to sign Hamhuis. I sort of get that, but the long-term planning sucked because once Hamhuis was signed Ballard became redundant almost immediately. I have to assume the scouting the Canucks had on Ballard was terrible because he was nowhere near the player we thought we were getting (could not play the right side, at all, terrible awareness, poor conditioning, etc.). Gillis also paid a hefty price to acquire Ballard, whereas Booth cost next to nothing.